Changing Policy Positions on a Dime

The Daily Show last night ran tape of Karl Rove, Bill O’Reilly, and Dick Morris, each pre and post-Sarah Palin. The comic effect was intense – each said exactly the opposite of what he had said before to accommodate the nomination. Palin has forced them to abandon previous rhetoric in order to adopt this rough and opportunistic woman who has abandoned her family for her career. For one thing, they’ve had to embrace choice in the face of an unwanted pregnancy.

Republicans now have to change course on talking points they have been using for twenty-eight years. But they do it, they do it on a dime, and with straight faces. Is there a better example of the craven hypocrisy of these political opportunists? The only thing that has mattered to them, Reagan to the present, has been to get a hold of the reins of government and to ram their policies down our throats – to change the tax system, to adopt an imperialistic foreign policy, eliminate civil liberties, reduce the standard of living of working Americans and create a highly segregated class-based society of haves and have nots.

These are not popular positions. So they hide behind a populist platform. To get hold of power, they’ve had to adopt cheesy slogans and embrace ideals they don’t care one way or the other about. Abortion is one of their opportunistic policy positions.

One would think that when they are caught in open contradiction, they would at least blush a little bit. But they don’t – they carry on as if Bristol Palin’s right to choose had always been their policy – it would be comical if not so devoid of shame.

Jon Stewart closed on a serious note last night, worth repeating. His guest was Newt Gingrich:

Stewart: One serious issue that I do want to address is sort of close to my heart: the issue of teen pregnancy. They have said this was Bristol’s decision and we should honor that. I have a daughter. The reason why I think it’s fair game is that Sarah Palin is on record as saying that she would veto abortions for women even in the event of being raped. So what she is in essence saying is “Respect my family’s ability to make this decision, and elect me so that I can keep your family from having the same opportunity”.

Gingrich: No – what’s she saying is that you and she can have a policy debate about whether or not Obama’s defending infanticide by abortion doctors was appropriate in the Illinois legislature.

Stewart: No no no – I’m going by her words … no abortion even in the case of rape.

Gingrich: Obama’s position in the Illinois legislature is one extreme, her position may be the other extreme. That’s a policy debate.

Stewart: But, when it comes down to her family, she says “respect her decision”.

Gingrich: Respect the privacy of her daughter, which is very different than …

Stewart: No – she said ‘Respect Bristol’s decision’ – that was their press release. It was Bristol’s decision. That is another word for choice.

Gingrich: And Bristol’s decision was to keep the child because in Alaska today she may have choice …

Stewart: I’m just saying that if she was president that choice would be removed from the family and the government would make it.

Indeed. The point is that Republicans frame the debate and will adopt any posture or stance that advances their cause, and the legions that they are manipulating apparently will fall in lockstep. The trick is, when it comes time to change that position, the legions have to follow again, lockstep. And they apparently have done so.

To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed; to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while take account of the reality which one denies – this is all indispensably necessary. (Orwell)